Search This Blog

Without the right to communicate and democratisation of communication, the right to life, liberty, freedom of speech and expression is meaningless.It attempts to keep track of traditional media, offline media and digital media that faces the onslaught of monopolistic tendencies and is wary of localisation of media. It is part of Citizens Forum for Civil Liberties (CFCL) For Details: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/mediavigil/info

Largest investor fraud ever in US: EU reviews fund rules

Bernard Lawrence Madoff, an American businessman, and former chairman of the NASDAQ stock exchange who founded the Wall Street firm Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC in 1960 and was its chairman until December 11, 2008, when he was charged with perpetrating what may be the largest investor fraud ever committed by a single person. He is under house arrest until his indictment with a deadline of February 11, 2009.

On December 10, 2008 Madoff allegedly told his sons, Andrew and Mark, that the asset management arm of his firm was a giant Ponzi scheme--as he put it, "one big lie." They then passed this information to authorities. The following day, Federal Bureau of Investigation agents arrested Madoff and charged him with one count of securities fraud. Five days after his arrest, Madoff's assets and those of the firm were frozen and a receiver was appointed to handle the case. According to federal charges, Madoff himself admitted that his firm has "liabilities of approximately US$50 billion." Banks from outside the U.S. have announced that they have potentially lost billions in U.S. dollars as a result. Some investors, journalists and economists have questioned Madoff's statement that he alone is responsible for the large-scale operation, and investigators are looking to determine if there were others involved in the scheme.

Madoff's firm, which is in the process of liquidation, was one of the top market maker businesses on Wall Street (the sixth-largest in 2008), often functioning as a "third-market" provider that bypassed "specialist" firms and directly executed orders over the counter from retail brokers. The firm also encompassed an investment management and advisory division that is now the focus of the fraud investigation.[9]Madoff was also a prominent philanthropist who served on the boards of nonprofit institutions, many of which entrusted his firm with their endowments. The freeze of his and his firm's assets significantly affected businesses around the world and a number of charities, some of which, including the Robert I. Lappin Charitable Foundation, the Picower Foundation, and the JEHT Foundation, have been forced to close as a consequence of the fraud.

EU reviews fund rules in light of Madoff scandalTue Jan 20, 2009

By Huw Jones

BRUSSELS, Jan 20 (Reuters) - European Union mutual fund rules may be tightened in light of the Madoff scandal to ensure investors can recover their assets held by custodians, EU diplomats said on Tuesday.

French Economy Minister Christine Lagarde asked EU finance ministers on Tuesday to review the rules, known as undertakings in collective investment in transferrable securities or UCITS.

"Developments in the Madoff case have brought to light a particular problem," she said in a letter to the ministers.

Prosecutors say Bernard Madoff of the United States ran a $50 billion Ponzi scheme, paying off earlier investors with money from later ones, in a scam that has devastated investors including European banks.

Lagarde said protection afforded to investors differed from one country to another in the EU due to different ways the UCITS rules were being applied.

The French call is widely seen as an attack on the application of the UCITS rules by neighbouring Luxembourg, a major funds centre in Europe.

"There is no difference between the French and Luxembourg legislation as far as this point is concerned," Luxembourg's prime minister and finance minister, Jean-Claude Juncker, told reporters on Monday evening.

Under EU law, assets in a fund must be entrusted for safekeeping to a depository, which is under strict obligation to return them when requested.

In some EU states, such an obligation has not been made explicit on sub-custodians or banks that are allowed to play the role of custodian, Lagarde said.

"There is a need to harmonise the interpretation of this obligation to reimburse depositors," a French diplomat said on condition of anonymity.

EU Internal Market Commissioner Charlie McCreevy told finance ministers he would not "sit idly by" and would supplement the rules, if needed, his spokesman said.

"If there is a need to supplement the principles or provide greater clarity, the (European) Commission will take the lead and move forward with the necessary actions," the spokesman added.

McCreevy will consult national market watchdogs, in the first instance, before deciding what changes are needed.

The EU has just adopted a reform of UCITS dealing with its fund management aspects.

Lagarde said the Madoff case had "highlighted the difficulty of locating securities, identifying the owners and determining the respective responsibilities to each link in the chain of ownership".

The Commission will propose a draft law at the end of 2009, known as the directive on legal certainty of securities holdings and transactions, as a further step to safeguard investor funds.

An international convention aimed at protecting individual titles to assets could also reflect lessons learned from the Madoff scandal, EU diplomats said.

In December, French market regulator Autorite des Marches Financiers (AMF) said French mutual funds had incurred losses of about 500 million euros due to Madoff's scheme. (Editing by Dale Hudson)

Reuters 2008

Get link

Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Google+

Email

Other Apps

Comments

Anonymous said…

I found this site using [url=http://google.com]google.com[/url] And i want to thank you for your work. You have done really very good site. Great work, great site! Thank you!

Popular posts from this blog

Note: Procedural Establishments Under The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 gives protection to a person who is still a Public Servant at the time the prosecution is launched, and also when he is no longer a public servant. This is to protect the Public Servant from a case being filed against him after his retirement. When the government servant or the employee is not removable from his office without the sanction of the Central Government, then the same is necessary. Sanction under this section is not necessary before a Public Servant could be prosecuted for an offence of bribery under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. There are three facets in the consideration of the protection given by Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. to the acts done by public officers. (i) The act complained attaches to it the official character of the person doing it; (ii) The official character or status of the accused gave him an opportunity of doing the…

Press ReleaseQuestionable and illegal UIDAI completes four yearsMaj Gen S.G.Vombatkere, VSM tell President that UID is extra-legal,
unethical, coercive
New Delhi, 28 Jan, 2013: Prime
Minister headed Cabinet Committee on UID related matters (CCUIDRM) which also
deal with National Population Register (NPR) has ensured that Unique
Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) continues to complete its four years
of existence without any legal basis and without disclosing that UID database
and NPR database is being merged with the electoral database. UIDAI was created
by a notification of Planning Commission dated January28, 2009.The notification is attached. As of as on
January 2, 2013, Cabinet Committee on
Unique Identification Authority of India related issues includes Prime
Minister, Sharad Pawar, Minister of Agriculture and Minister of Food Processing
Industries, P. Chidambaram, Minister of Finance, Sushilkumar Shinde, Minister
of Home Affairs, Mallikarjun Kharge, Minister of Labour and …

At a program to mark the 76th birth anniversary of late Prabhash Joshi, well known columnist and former editor of Nayi Duniya, Jansatta and Indian Express, speaker after speaker demanded the formation of Third Press Commission. The program was organised on July 15 at Satyagrah Mandap, Raj Ghat by Prabhash Parampra Nyas and Gandhi Smriti awam Darshan Samiti.

It has come to light that the efforts of senior journalists like Ram Bahadur Rai, Ram Sharan Joshi and Kuldeep Nayar have been demanding setting up of the Third Press Commission from the Manmohan Singh Govt but due to resistance from the de facto head of the state, it has not been constituted so far.

Press Council of India in its report of 2001 had also recommended setting up of a Third Press Commission during Justice PB Swant's tenure. Justice G.N. Ray, the Press Council chairman also recommended it in his speech in 2009 in Kolkata.

In July 2011, at a function in Indore too, journalists marched in the streets demanding…